Billy Rojas is a lifelong student and teacher of
history, religion, politics and philosophy. He holds degrees in Philosophy
and Intellectual History from Roosevelt University, and did graduate work in
Higher Education at the University of Massachusetts. He has taught in
Arizona, Kentucky, Washington, and for the City Colleges of Chicago assigned
to the U.S. Navy (on the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise).

This means war.

There is a book that you really should know about. This is a 1998 /
2001volume by O.R. Adams, Jr., As We
Sodomize America -The Homosexual Movement and the Decline of Morality in America.
The book is 700 pages long, text, with still more pages devoted to bibliography
and other apparatus. Adams is editor of
American Traditions Magazine, which can be accessed at :

There is a lengthy review of the book at the site by Adams himself,
plus a great deal of other material related to his defense of traditional
Protestant Evangelical faith, such as his writings in opposition to evolution.
About which, needless to say, I take a diametrically opposed view, unlike his
book about homosexuality. Adams through his generosity sent me a copy of As
We Sodomize America, plus a paperback version, for which my gratitude could
not be greater. While you can download the book for free at his site, actually
having hard copy text to read is so much better --for many reasons.

I recommend the book highly, even with some serious
reservations. The first 200 + pages are most important. The book, in these
pages, provides a comprehensive view of homosexuality. Without being anything but objective, not
counting his occasional editorial disapprovals of homosexuality, Adams
describes in gory detail the real life actions that constitute homosexuality
itself, things no-one who is not pathological can possibly want to think about.

There are whole chapters on such topics as anal sex, rimming (kissing and licking the anus, ingesting fecal matter for 'fun,' and so forth),
fisting (insertion of a fist up the rectum for sexual thrills), mud rolling (sex play with feces), and every homosexual's favorite pastime, sadomasochism
--including bondage, torture and brutality. That is, a reader would need to be
seriously mentally sick not to immediately recognize that describing such
behaviors is to discuss pathological behavior and a diseased form of mentality.

None of which, at least except in certain avant garde
venues, and the public schools in the guise of AIDS and safe sex "education,"
homosexuals want others to even know about. Why not ? Because to discuss such
behavior is to discuss repulsive behavior by any psychologically normal
standards, behavior that would cause the non-clinically insane to recoil in
disgust.

If you need to heave your guts for any reason at all,
read the first 200 pages of the book. In no time at all after that, your lunch
will be splattered all over the toilet bowl or the nearest sink, guaranteed.

There is much more in the book, needless to say. The whole thing
reads like a horror story as Adams chronicles the rise and triumph of the "homosexualist"
cause from the late 60s to the late 90s. It is a tale of irresponsibility and
denial, of media manipulation and collusion of politicians with the media, of
corruption in the churches, of brave champions against the forces of darkness,
you might say, made ineffectual by the sheer power of the courts, of giant
business firms completely compromised by homosexuals, and of the utter depravity
of so-called conservatives in Congress who, while all this was happening, did
just about nothing.

The more I read Adams book the more I was reminded of
my own book of 2000, much shorter ( if published it probably would have come in
at maybe 150 pages ) but covering most of the same ground, plus a number of
issues Adams never discussed at all. Still, where there was similarity, Adams
presented evidence in overwhelming abundance. And the more I read the more angry
I became: At the stupidity of so many people who should know better than to
have been hoodwinked by homosexuals, at clergy who have tossed out the Bible in
favor of social approval by elites, at sons of bitches like William Clinton, at
judges who legislate from the bench, and most of all at myself for not having
revised my 2000 book and expanded it into a new book that would totally destroy
each and every argument that homosexuals
and their dupes can possibly make. But that, while my research is far along,
will still need to wait for a while. Adams' opus will provide a wealth of
information that was unavailable to me when I wrote 11 years ago.

All of this said, the limitations of the book are
glaring. Starting with the length. It was a chore to read that many pages, even
for someone who has a professional interest in the subject. I did it over the
course of a month, usually about 50 pages at
a sitting. And although the prose is readable and always informative, there is a
"workmanlike" quality to the writing that borders on stylelessness. About what
you'd expect from an attorney, which Adams is. That is, the book reads like a
legal brief rather than a text written by someone who has studied professional
writing style and all the tricks of the writer's trade. It consists of a
mountain of evidence, sometimes not well organized (usually organized, but by no
means always), which is presented in a certain heavy-handed way. So, be prepared
to do some hard work to get through the book.

Why Adams, who can afford it, did not hire a
professional editor to help him craft the text into a really readable book I
cannot even guess. The book could easily have been cut to maybe 350 pages. Had
that been done the volume might have become a hot seller. Then there is Adams
and his religion. About 100 pages of the book consists of his preachments about
the Bible and faith. My reaction to this material is that this was not the place
to interject his spiritual views. Unless all you hope to reach are fellow
believers, which, especially in the final chapters, seems to have been his
objective. That is, this is a "preaching to the choir" book, not a book intended
to persuade the public at large. So, if you are not a traditionalist Methodist,
as is the author (a graduate of SMU), or a Southern Baptist or the like,
perhaps a Missouri Synod Lutheran or member of a Bible church, you may well be
turned off by the homiletics.

What is so disappointing about this is that Adams
simply cannot conceive of any way to turn the tide against homosexuality but by
a return to that "old time religion" and to a reawakening of the religious
consensus of the 1950s era, including conservative and Orthodox Jews and
tradition-minded Catholics. Only then will real progress become possible. Which,
to me, is delusionary. News flash: That ain't gonna happen. There is zero chance of
that happening.

And not to recognize this obvious fact does no-one the least good.
About religion, which for me is vitally important, including the role of the
Bible in faith and culture, everything must be re-thought for the 21st century.
Faith must be made relevant again but in new ways, with ecumenical spirit at the
forefront, none of which Adams comprehends.

He has five versions of the Bible in his library. Except for the
King James, none of them are versions that I regard as scholarly or with serious
value because of doctrinal translations that, in places, miss the actual
meaning of the original text. Thus I have the RSV, NEB, Oxford, New Jerusalem, a
translation of the Peshitto Syriac (from Aramaic) and a translation
of the Tanach from Hebrew by Jewish
scholars. And a collection of Nag Hammadi texts, Dead Sea Scroll texts, and so
forth, as ecumenical a collection of Biblical scriptures as anyone can put
together. All of which is directly relevant to modern day actual Bible
scholarship. This is important because of the many verses in the Bible that
condemn homosexuality and because of the Bible's place in our culture. But no
way can I reasonably use the Bible as my sole authority for
seeking changes in the law or to the
Constitution. That kind of approach is doomed to failure from the outset and it
really is foolish to think otherwise. But to leave out the Bible would be stupid
beyond belief.

The book also is larded with extraneous comments on unrelated
issues, capital punishment, polygamy, heterosexual promiscuity, and the like,
all of which is unnecessary and does nothing at all to advance the main argument
in the text --unless other religious conservatives are impressed, which
obviously ( if unfortunately ) they were not. Book
sales never seem to have gone anywhere despite the professional "look" of the
book and its nice format. Also, in common with many or most (I am tempted to
say nearly all) Evangelicals, Adams is "psychology averse, " and made no effort
at all to understand the issue in psychoanalytic or related terms. This is a
major weakness on the book, and it was utterly needless.

The index has some flaws, there is only one reference to Dr.
Charles Socarides, for instance, even though there is a second reference
actually in the book, and it is the most important. It turns out that Adams had
access to Socarides' 1995 opus, Homosexuality --A Freedom Too Far. But
he made almost no use of this absolutely essential book . Why not? I can only
guess but must presume that it is because Socarides was a psychiatrist/psychoanalyst (and founder of NARTH), and because Adams regards anything to do
with Freud the way he regards Darwin, as from the Devil. As far as I am
concerned this attitude is extremely ill-advised. The good uses to which
professional psychology can be put in the debate are incalculable. And more to
the point, you are not about to convince the "great unwashed," nor the political
and cultural elites, UNLESS your arguments are grounded in the behavioral
sciences, especially psychology. Moreover, you also need to make good use of
social science more generally, especially sociology, and it doesn't hurt to know
relevant history, indeed, a discipline that can go far toward debunking the many
homosexual myths that now infect our culture like a virulent epidemic disease.

Adams is oblivious to all of this. Instead his entire pursuit is
that of a lawyer. That is anything but "bad" but it has decided --and serious--
limitations. But, not at all incidentally, he rakes the legal profession over
the coals for how far it has become 'homosexualized' in the past few decades, to
its horrible discredit. Not bad for someone who himself is a lawyer.

In fact, even as a professed Christian, Adams is due
full credit for his criticisms of Christian indifference to the homosexual
movement's record of successes. Again and again, Adams bemoans the lackluster
efforts of most Evangelicals (when there have been any efforts at all), their
unwillingness to even make themselves informed (minus some notable exceptions), and the low priority they even put on the problem. All of which is a complete
disgrace. And it is why, finally, I have given up on any hope of co-operations
with Evangelicals on this matter. I am not interested in fighting half of the
battles they demand be fought, and have no use at all for anti-evolution views.
Worse, they seem determined to be as ineffective as possible, to launch into
sideshow issues, and to be unable to conceive of any other way to even approach
the issue except through tradition and traditional morality. I may be in general
agreement about morality, but my understanding of what must be done to actually
win the war against homosexuality is light years distant from what Evangelicals
have in mind.

Then too, there is Evangelical hero worship that I
regard as misplaced. Until the advent of William Clinton, no president, not even
Carter, did more to advance the homosexual agenda than Ronald Reagan. But Adams
had no desire to do the research necessary to find out how pro-homosexual Reagan
actually was --even though it is ridiculously easy to do so. Instead, the book
is filled with various rhapsodies about RR despite the fact that (while he was
governor of California) he supported Troy Perry in his founding of the Metropolitan Community (so-called) Church --which
falsely teaches that Jesus was a homosexual. RR also was a supporter of
Hollywood homosexuals and of their influence in the movie industry, which
should have been unmistakably clear when
Reagan led the parade of thosegiving
tributes to Rock Hudson after he had succumbed to AIDS.

But, also in common with most Evangelicals, Adams is
susceptible to the appeal of any politician who says the magic word "Jesus." And
Reagan said Jesus often enough to win over Adams, the way that George W. Bush
won election in large part by saying Jesus enough times --and it didn't really
matter if he meant it at all. Bush also, while outside of the world described in
Adams' book, played the game that homosexuals wanted even if, to be sure, he did
not do nearly as much as they would have liked. But the point is that Bush was
one more Republican who betrayed social conservatives.

For one, I don't see where this will change. I like
Evangelicals as people. Many are very smart. Generally their hearts are in the
right place. And on a number of other
issues it is very possible to make common cause with them.
And make no mistake, as a Baptist in my
youth, some part of me will alwaysbe
Baptist. But it has become impossible to look to Evangelicals for anything like
leadership in this effort. They have demonstrated their indifference and
incompetence enough times now that I have finally gotten the point.

Thank God for the exceptions to this rule, but by and
large Evangelicals simply don't have what it takes to win this war. The
objective should be, and must be, putting science up front, making a case
based on empirical evidence, and going on
the offensive with every intention of winning through bold actions that shake up
the political establishment: Right and Left. And I sure in
heck have no interest in promoting many of the economic policy objectives of the
Republican Party in the process. Or, for that matter, of the Democratic Party.
This has to be a war against the malfeasance of BOTH political parties. And let the chips fall
where they may.

I sent Adams a copy of my proposed Constitutional Amendments,
including the Amendment to treat homosexuality as a psychopathology and a demand
for public figures to cease, entirely, making legal use of the claim
that this mental disorder is a question
of civil rights, which is a logical absurdity. I'd
say that my views on such issues are quite close to those of Adams himself. In a
private letter to myself, Adams said that I should cease with such ideas and
focus on more productive things. It was rather obvious from what he said that he
had, at most, skimmed the proposed Amendments and had not read the introductory
chapter that put the entire project in context and explained its purposes. There
was, for example, no acknowledgement that one of my main priorities is to end,
for all time, all judicial activism, legislating from the bench, which is also a
major theme in his book. For you see, I
should read his book but the other way around does not apply. To be very sure, I
wanted to read his book and am thankful he sent a copy and thankful even more
that it is the kind of resource that it is. Few books are as valuable to my
research.

Still, I am a published writer and former college teacher. As well,
I have been a magazine editor. I believe that I have important things to say and
important ideas to share with people. I
take pride in my education and insights. Furthermore,
I do not defer to anyone's judgment about
what is and is not important unless
someone is able to persuade me with damned good arguments
based on researched evidence.

Instead it is very obvious that the reason for his
objection was that he has a lifetime
invested in the Law and in the way that lawyers do things. He is protecting his
turf and, defensively, he is not about to let new ideas get inside his fort. OK,
but that is a sure way to make oneself irrelevant in the world of the 21st
century. As it would be for anyone heavily invested in some other profession,
whether government or communications or education or anything else. The world is
far bigger than anyone's professional enclave in the world. As well, I made the
point, very obviously, that he made obliquely in his book, that the Evangelical
strategy for dealing with homosexuality has been a dismal failure. And I went on
to insist that we need an altogether new strategy, one that speaks to many different populations in our
polyglot and pluralistic society. We need a creative political approach that
just might actually work. Guess not. For, Adams all we need is "what was good
enough for mother and good enough for father and is good enough for me."

"Hopeless, simply hopeless," was what I thought when reading his
comments. And I have the impression that it is similarly hopeless --on this
issue even if no further generalization is warranted -- for Evangelicals at
large. And for a large percentage of Catholics and Jews as well.

Anyway, the ironic part of this exchange is that, while his letter
was adamant that we don't need any new Amendments; all we need
are conservative Justices and appellate court judges. A position which he
contradicted in his book. And in any case, we aren't going to get conservative
'savior judges," and we certainly have only gotten a very few, inn a qualified
sense, since Adams book was published. Actually what we need is to capture
the imagination of the public and of politicians who have consciences. And of
any journalists or others in the media who might be sympathetic. We need new ideas, a new philosophy, and
especially new leadership.

A decade ago Adams may have understood, or sufficiently
understood, to have "gotten" what I had tried to say. For, contrary to what
Adams said in 2011, in 2001 he also advocated some new Amendments. That is we
get Adams 1 vs. Adams 2. Take your pick.

University of Texas (Austin) professor Sanford
Levinson was interviewed on C-Span recently. His book, Constitutional Faith,
has been reissued with new material. He is a constitutional scholar who takes
the view that it is way past time for a new Constitutional Convention and many
new Amendments. For the sake of full disclosure, Levinson is a self-professed
"liberal." However, he also knows the Constitution and its history, and makes a
real effort to understand the conservative position on all constitutional
questions. He even admits that some of the leaders of the Tea Part raise
important questions and make valid points. And the Tea Party, with which I
sometimes identify ("sometimes" is the operative word) favors a good number of
new Amendments and an overhaul of how American government does business.

Levinson also made the point that amending
constitutions is hardly some kind of American heresy. Most state constitutions
have been amended with some frequency and, at that, the Founding Fathers
anticipated that the US Constitution would be amended regularly based on
experience as history unfolded and new needs were identified and existing
problems better understood and then remedied with additions to our founding
document.

I like one of Adamsí ideas for Amendments quite a lot,
in fact. The Congress, with a majority or super-majority vote, should be able to
overturn any decision of the Supreme
Court and, in the process hold the Justices responsible to the
people of the United States, and cease
acting the role of an oligarchic elite immune
from considerations of decency, from common morality, and from elementary rules
of logic.

One thing a Constitutional Amendment to end homosexuality in
America ought to be able to do, if it
receives public attention, especially thinking about how it is written and all
the evidence it supplies to the effect that homosexuality is psychopathological,
is to finally start the kind of debate we have needed on the issue of
homosexuality for many years. And in the course of things just maybe leaders
will arise who can actually start to reverse each and every homosexual gain in
the public policy realm they have gotten in the years since 1973. The time is
also past due when the APA should have been discredited, and the ACLU.

We need a completely new approach to the issue of
homosexuality . Nothing less will suffice. And we need people who are committed
to winning this war, regardless of the cost. This is a war against utter
depravity and, to put it in such terms, against unspeakable evil. And we sure in
hell cannot win it on the basis of a legal brief. The objective must be to rid
our nation of a massive psychopathology. The objective also must be to have an
open and honest debate that neither

Democrats of Republicans could possibly want and can be depended
upon to oppose with al available resources. Therefore the objective must be to
discredit each and every Democrat or
Republican who acts on behalf of
homosexual interests. Anyone interested in a good fight?

Billy
Rojas

My Reply Comments.

Obviously, I do not agree with some of Mr. Rojas's ideas
and comments. However, they are interesting, and all sides of a question should
be considered, in trying to get to the right answer. My brief comments will be
primarily limited to a couple of errors.

Rojas indicated that I did not sufficiently respect
NARTH (National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality). On the
contrary, I very much respect the organization, its members, and the work they
do to help homosexuals overcome their pathological addictions.

I have never proposed any constitutional amendment that
would allow "Congress, with a majority or super-majority vote, ... to overturn
any decision of the Supreme Court."
Others have proposed such an amendment, including Judge Robert Bork, for whom I
have great respect. But I do not agree with such a concept. This would allow
Congress to change our Constitution. I do not believe that either Congress or
the Supreme Court should have such a power. I believe that the Constitution
should be changed only by the people and their representatives, in accordance
with Article V of our Constitution.

I have the utmost respect for our Founders, and the
Constitution they gave us. They considered themselves influenced by
"Providence," and I believe that they were. All of the constitutional amendments
I have proposed are in the books and articles on this website. And I have only
proposed two amendments to our federal Constitution.

One amendment was to limit marriage to a union between
one man and one woman, because of the conflicts that exist between state laws;
and because I consider same-sex marriage a depraved pagan concept that should
not be allowed in this country.

The other proposed amendment would require judges to be
judges, and not legislators. It would also, in time cure prior erroneous
constitutional decisions by which activist judges have, in effect, changed our
constitution to their own personal views, instead of interpreting a provision
according to what was intended by those who formed and enacted it. The reason
the amendment would, in time, cure such erroneous decisions is because they
would not be considered valid precedent, as they now are.

I do not agree that our Constitution needs any
other amendments at this time. And certainly not wholesale amendments or a
constitutional convention. I consider it a wonderful document as it is. All of
our current problems were caused by activist Supreme Court justices, and those
problems
can be eliminated by curing that affliction.